156
44.76
46.79
11.81
54.48
| Level | Grade | N |
|---|---|---|
| Primary | 6 | 30 |
| Primary | 7 | 29 |
| Primary | 8 | 26 |
| Secondary | 1 | 29 |
| Secondary | 2 | 20 |
| Secondary | 3 | 22 |
Perceived Appropriateness of Active and Passive Parental Consent in Social Science Research in the School Context
This is the online dashboard that is part of a study on parent consent. The main question of this study is how appropriate parents of children in primary- and secondary school perceive active- and passive informed consent for participation of their child(ren) in scientific research in the school context. Specifically, this study investigated the difference in perceived appropriateness between active- and passive parental informed consent for a variety of research types conducted in the school context. Per research type, parents indicated how appropriate they think both active- and passive parental informed consent are in the setting. For each research type, a reversed inferior hypothesis was tested by using a Bayesian paired sample t-test. This means that we were looking for evidence that passive consent was at least as appropriate as active consent, or passive consent was more appropriate. Moreover, the study also asked a number of exploratory questions, each addressed in one of the tabs above. For example, we studied specific questions that form exceptions to passive consent, reasons for (not) responding to invitations to consent to studies in the school context, appropriateness of an umbrella consent for multiple studies in a school year, the communication with parents and providing consent, acceptability of sharing data and appropriate reward for a child’s participation in scientific studies.
The accompanying article can be found here: preprint/article
The preregistration can be found on the OSF
The data can be found on Yoda
And an example vignette can be found on Vimeo
Thabo van Woudenberg, Esther Rozendaal & Moniek Buijzen Erasmus University Rotterdam
Intro text BLa bla bla This is the online dashboard that is part of a study on parent consent. The main question of this study is how appropriate parents of children in primary- and secondary school perceive active- and passive informed consent for participation of their child(ren) in scientific research in the school context. Specifically, this study investigated the difference in perceived appropriateness between active- and passive parental informed consent for a variety of research types conducted in the school context. Per research type, parents indicated how appropriate they think both active- and passive parental informed consent are in the setting. For each research type, a reversed inferior hypothesis was tested by using a Bayesian paired sample t-test. This means that we were looking for evidence that passive consent was at least as appropriate as active consent, or passive consent was more appropriate. Moreover, the study also asked a number of exploratory questions, each addressed in one of the tabs above. For example, we studied specific questions that form exceptions to passive consent, reasons for (not) responding to invitations to consent to studies in the school context, appropriateness of an umbrella consent for multiple studies in a school year, the communication with parents and providing consent, acceptability of sharing data and appropriate reward for a child’s participation in scientific studies.
Scores on perceived appropriateness of active and passive parental consent for different types of researh in the school context. Error bars show 95% confidence interval.
| Research type | Mean | 95% CI | Mean | 95% CI | Bayes factor | Conclusion | Cohens D |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Observational | 5.06 | [4.77, 5.36] | 4.74 | [4.45, 5.02] | 0.04 | Pas = Act | 0.11 |
| Co-creation | 4.69 | [4.41, 4.96] | 5.29 | [5.05, 5.53] | 0.40 | Pas = Act | 0.11 |
| Survey | 4.13 | [3.82, 4.45] | 5.51 | [5.26, 5.76] | 10.44 | Pas < Act | 0.23 |
| Longitudinal Survey | 3.58 | [3.27, 3.89] | 5.42 | [5.17, 5.68] | 27.40 | Pas < Act | 0.26 |
| Focus group | 4.84 | [4.55, 5.13] | 5.13 | [4.88, 5.39] | >100 | Pas < Act | 0.34 |
| Interview | 4.48 | [4.18, 4.78] | 5.16 | [4.91, 5.41] | >100 | Pas < Act | 0.49 |
| Objective Measures | 3.48 | [3.17, 3.79] | 5.50 | [5.25, 5.75] | >100 | Pas < Act | 0.66 |
| Diary | 4.50 | [4.20, 4.80] | 5.42 | [5.18, 5.66] | >100 | Pas < Act | 0.71 |
| Data Donation | 3.54 | [3.24, 3.85] | 5.46 | [5.21, 5.70] | >100 | Pas < Act | 0.73 |
| Clinical | 2.72 | [2.41, 3.04] | 5.51 | [5.20, 5.81] | >100 | Pas < Act | 0.92 |
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.
Were were interested whether parents would regard certain topics of interested to our projects as more or less appropriate for passive consent. Therefore we asked the parents how appropriate passive consent is for surveys when we ask questions pertaining to their happiness and mental well-being, about their friends and who they are, about the situation at home, and personal identifiable information such as name or address. In Table 3 and Figure 5, we have also added the genaral appropriateness of passive consent from the vignettes. The general label refers to the appropriateness of passive consent for surveys form the vignettes. As indicated in the table and the figure, …
| Mean | SD | SE | 95% CI | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Happiness | 4.72 | 1.71 | 0.14 | [4.46, 4.99] |
| Friend | 4.65 | 1.68 | 0.13 | [4.39, 4.92] |
| Domestic | 4.17 | 2.01 | 0.16 | [3.85, 4.48] |
| Personal | 3.60 | 2.12 | 0.17 | [3.26, 3.93] |
| General | 4.69 | 1.76 | 0.14 | [4.41, 4.96] |
In our lab, we pride ourselves for using a blended science approach. In our projects, we cooperate with youth to design our studies. Specifically, together with the children we co-create media content such as instagram posts os tiktok videos. Therefore, we asked the parents were asked how appropriate passive consent is for co-creation when participants will make photo’s or video’s.
With a mean score of 3.57 this was not perceived as appropriate by the parents, as it is below the mid-point of the scale and considerable lower than the appropriateness of passive consent for co-creation in general (4.69). Therefore, we advise researchers to ask for active parental consent when co-creating media messages. This is also in line with… media content could be identifiable, faces, places or names.
The parents in the study were shown a video about a specific format for obtaining parental consent for multiple studies within one school year. Specifically, parents are asked to provide active parental consent at the start of the school year for a series of studies on a determined topic. For each study within the school year, parents are informed and have the opportunity to opt-out. We have termed this cluster consent.
The parents in this study were asked to respond to the idea of the cluster consent in general. Again they used the faces scale and could select the face that best matched their beliefs. The range was between 1 and 7 as shown in Figure 1.
Compared of the average scores of the 10 vignettes, the cluster consent scored a bit higher. But, be aware, these two scores are not entirely comparable. The passive and active scores are the averages of the vignette. The cluster score was just one single item measuring appropriateness in general.
In the next question, participants gave a bit more information about the cluster consent for the different research methods. Contrary to the vignettes, they did not rate the appropriateness on a scale from 1 to 7, but they could indicate per research type if they thought the cluster consent would be appropriate (yes vs no). Here are the percents of “yes” per research method.
As can be seen in Figure 6, the majority of the parents was open to the concept of cluster consent for Survey, Observation, *
| Mean | SD | SE | 95% CI | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Active | 5.31 | 1.66 | 0.13 | [5.05, 5.57] |
| Passive | 4.10 | 2.04 | 0.16 | [3.78, 4.42] |
| Cluster | 5.45 | 1.79 | 0.14 | [5.17, 5.73] |
| Previously approached | Number of Participants | Percent |
|---|---|---|
| Yes | 37 | 0.24 |
| No | 106 | 0.68 |
| Not sure | 13 | 0.08 |
Given that so few of our participants were approached before, we wondered if this had an effect on the ratings for active and passive consent. The ratings of both active and passive consent were slightly higher for those who have been approached previously. However, the differences between active and passive consent were comparable between both groups (BF = 0.15).
| Reponded | Number of Participants | Percent |
|---|---|---|
| Yes | 35 | 94.59 |
| No | 2 | 5.41 |
Participants were asked whether they have been approached previously to provide consent for their child in academic research. Follow-up questions asked about research why people did not respond previously.
As can be seen in the table on the left, the majority of the parents in our sample was never approached before.
| Previously approached | Active | Passive | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| No | 5.28 | 4.03 | 1.25 |
| Yes | 5.50 | 4.22 | 1.28 |
Of the 37 participants that were approached previously, almost everybody did respond! Only two people answered that they did not respond to a previous invite.
The first participants indicated that (s)he had forgotten to respond.
The second participants said (s)he did not respond because a passive consent procedure was used.
Participants were asked via which channels they like to opt-in or opt-out of the study. Participants could select multiple channels. In the figure, we have plotted the percentage of participants that selected the channel. we have annotated the exact number of participants next the the end of the bar. Because participants could select multiple channels, the total of the percentages does not add up to 100%.
Email and website were the most selected channels. When participants selected other, they could give a suggestion. One of these suggestions was via an app, the other text field was left blank.
Moreover, participants were asked how important it is that communication about the study is done in the same way the school normally communicates with the parents. The participants could respond with not at all (1) to very important (7). On average, the score was 5.82 (SD = 1.28), meaning that most of them agreed that it is important to use the schools’ existing channels of communication.
Participants were asked what they think would be a fair reward for participation in scientific studies. Participants could select select multiple rewards. In the figure, we have plotted the percentage of participants that selected the channel. we have annotated the exact number of participants next the the end of the bar. Because participants could select multiple rewards, the total of the percentages does not add up to 100%.
A gift for the whole class, a gift for the individual child were the most selected rewards. Around one in three participants indicated that it was also not necessary to reward the participants, as it is important to participate in scientific studies. When participants selected other, they could give a suggestion. One of these suggestions was to donate money to charity chosen by the children. Another suggestion was to handout discount coupons for excursion. The last interesting suggestion was to let the children decide what they want.
In addition, participants who selected some form of momentary reward were asked to add what they thought would be a fair amount of euro’s per hour. As can be seen, the amount vary heavily, between 1€ and 50€ per hour. But looking at the mean (7,33€),median and the mode (both 5€), the results suggests that 5€ per hour is reasonable for the parents.
| Payment | N | Mean | Median | Mode | Min | Max |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Vouchers | 20 | 8.12 | 5 | 5 | 1 | 50 |
| Wire money to child | 15 | 6.17 | 5 | 5 | 1 | 15 |
| Wire money to parent | 2 | 10.00 | 10 | NA | 5 | 15 |
| Pay in cash | 2 | 5.50 | 6 | NA | 1 | 10 |
Erasmus University Rotterdam (EUR) is an internationally oriented university with a strong social orientation in its education and research, as expressed in our mission ‘Creating positive societal impact’. EUR is home to 3.700 academics and professionals and almost 33.000 students from more than 140 countries. Everything we do, we do under the credo The Erasmian Way – Making Minds Matter. We’re global citizens, connecting, entrepreneurial, open-minded, and socially involved. These Erasmian Values function as our internal compass and create EUR’s distinctive and recognizable profile. From these values, with a broad perspective and with an eye for diversity, different backgrounds and opinions, our employees work closely together to solve societal challenges from the dynamic and cosmopolitan city of Rotterdam. Thanks to the high quality and positive societal impact of our research and education, EUR can compete with the top European universities. www.eur.nl.
Young people grow up in a world where computers, tablets and smartphones are omnipresent. These digital media technologies offer important opportunities in the fields of entertainment, education, communication and cultural development. This being said, there are also risks involved that can affect their well-being and safety. Our research highlights the ways in which young people can take full advantage of the opportunities that digital media provides. Simultaneously, we emphasize how youth can cope with the potential risks of digital media use. Education to promote media literacy is indispensable for this.
MediaMovez helps in the development of effective media literacy education programs. Through research, we can contribute by developing education programs that help children interact with digital media in a more autonomous, safe and responsible way.
MediaMovez uses a media empowerment approach. This approach aims to strengthen the skills that young people need to use digital media independently and in a media-smart way.
SocialMovez
Online social networks such as Instagram, TikTok and Snapchat offer unprecedented technological possibilities to promote a healthy lifestyle among young people. For example, through influencers in their online network. With our research, we want to make online health campaigns more effective while safeguarding young people’s digital privacy.
SocialMovez investigates how health campaigns for young people can be spread more effectively through peer influencers in online social networks. We focus on promoting healthy behaviors such as physical activity or healthy eating habits. In our research we aim to identify peer influencers in young people’s online social networks and motivate them to engage in the health campaign.
We use innovative technologies in the field of data analysis to optimize online (health) campaigns without compromising the privacy of young people. We co-create our campaign messages and strategies with young people, parents, and health professionals.